Kent Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Ransom

• Decision Date: 29 June 1881
• Citation: 46 Mich. 416,9 N.W. 454
• Parties: KENT FURNITURE MANUF'G CO. v. RANSOM.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

9 N.W. 454

46 Mich. 416

KENT FURNITURE MANUF'G CO. v. RANSOM.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 29, 1881

Witnesses in Sandusky, Ohio, testified as to value of certain services to be rendered at Grand Rapids, Michigan. There was no evidence tending to show that they did not know the value of such services at Grand Rapids. Held, that it would be presumed they had the necessary information to enable them to testify. An agreement provided that plaintiff should be paid "the same wages as shall be paid to other men in the employ of the company filling similar positions." There was no evidence that there were other men filling similar positions. Held, that evidence of the value of such services was proper.

Taggart & Wolcott, for plaintiff in error.

J.W. &amp O.C. Ransom, for defendant in error.

MARSTON C.J.

Ransom brought assumpsit to recover a balance claimed for personal labor performed under a written agreement with the plaintiff in error. The cause was tried by the court, without a jury and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The case comes here on writ of error. The first and second errors assigned relate to the testimony of the witnesses Jacobs and Knight in answer to interrogatories. The services which the plaintiff was to perform were to be rendered at Grand Rapids in this state, while the witnesses interrogated resided at Sandusky, Ohio, and the question asked was what in their opinion the services of the plaintiff would be worth as an assistant in the manufacture and sale of a certain bed-spring.

The specific objection pointed out on the trial was that the witnesses did not profess to know anything of the comparative value of wages at Sandusky and at Grand Rapids, nor the value of services or labor at Grand Rapids. It is a sufficient answer to say that there is nothing in the case tending to show that they did not, and at the present time, in view of the facilities for obtaining accurate information, and of traveling from place to place, we cannot assume that these men did not possess the necessary information to enable them to testify, or that there was any difference in the prices paid for, or the value of, skilled labor between the places mentioned. The form of the question was not any broader than the contract, as under it the plaintiff was employed to assist in the manufacture and sale of the patented article and although the answers given may have gone beyond the questions...